Prototype · Preview: every server in the official registry, synced every 30 minutes. Reviews and accounts come in a later step.
PopNx MCPMCP servers for people who use AI · explained in plain words

Arcstone MCP Sidecar

by trencinodin-stackversion 0.1.0i★ –i–
Registry nameio.github.trencinodin-stack/arcstone-mcp-sidecar

Install

Overview

Description from the maker (original English)

Deterministic execution boundary and reference MCP sidecar for Arcstone Security Stack

PopNx MCP’s three pillars

These three are never merged into one score: opinions, measurements and popularity are different things.

What you can do with it

We have not written a plain-language summary for this one yet. Below are the facts we read from the registry.

  • Connection: –
  • Transport:
  • Category: Other

Install

Pick the AI app you use, then copy the settings.

Before you install

  • Basic checks: 1 of 1 passed
  • Runs on your computer with your user’s permissions (files, network, apps).
  • The registry lists no key to fill in.

The maker has not listed install details in the registry. See the maker’s README below.

What it can do

Runs on your computer; the tool list appears in your AI app after you install it.

Basic checksi

We check information anyone can see; we have not read the code. Checks that do not apply are left out of the count. · Checked Nov 7, 2026

  • ✓ Pass

    Maker matches the repo

    The registry name was verified with the GitHub account trencinodin-stack, which owns the repo

  • … Not checked yet

    Still maintained

    We have not read this repo from GitHub yet

  • … Not checked yet

    Has a licence

    We have not read this repo from GitHub yet

  • – Not applicable

    Endpoint responds

    This one runs on your computer; there is no internet endpoint

  • – Not applicable

    Sign-in with OAuth

    Runs on your computer and uses local settings instead

  • … Not checked yet

    No hidden instructions in tool descriptions

    Runs on your computer; we can only read tool lists from internet endpoints

Compared with others in Otheri

  • More stars than 0% of the other 32706 servers in this category
  • Published to the registry more recently than 44% of the other 32706 servers in this category
  • Basic checks equal to or better than 100% of the other 32706 servers in this category

Compared with every active server in this category in the registry. Stars count only when the publisher owns the repo.

Common questions

Is Arcstone MCP Sidecar safe?

It passed 1 of 1 applicable basic checks. We have not read the code. Before adding a key or token, see what access the server asks for and use a key with only the permissions you need.

What keys or codes does it need?

The registry does not list a required key, though some servers ask you to sign in on first use.

Does it run on my computer or in the cloud?

It runs on your computer. Your AI app starts it when needed, and data does not pass through the maker’s servers (unless it calls an online service itself).

Is it still maintained?

The GitHub repo last changed –, and the latest version (0.1.0) reached the registry 2 months ago.

Which apps can use it?

Apps that support MCP, such as Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor and VS Code.

What can I use instead?

In the same category: Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, Kanal Varna — drains, leaks & plumbing (Varna, BG)

Alternatives

Servers in the same category from other makers, sorted by stars.

Reading a card:★ GitHub starsiThree pillars: reviews · checks · usageiUpdated = latest version published to the registryi

Spec Driven Development

by formulahendry

MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.

Runs on your computer★ 440MITUpdated 14 months ago
Install

Remote Desktop Commander

by desktop-commander

Remote Desktop Commander: use files, terminal and processes on your own computers from any AI app.

Runs in the cloud★ 211Updated 2 days ago
Install

README from the maker

Open the README

Copied from the maker’s repo as written. PopNx MCP has not reviewed or endorsed it. HTML, images and scripts are removed. Links lead off this site.

Arcstone Execution Boundary

Repository identity: arcstone-mcp-sidecar Implementation package: arcstone-execution-boundary Status: Experimental / Downstream / Non-Canonical / Bounded Evidence Version: 0.1.0 implementation starter

This repository is the initial native implementation of the frozen Arcstone Execution Boundary v0.1 experimental specification.

It tests one bounded question:

Can a deterministic downstream execution boundary prevent an untrusted or nondeterministic producer from causing a protected side effect unless an explicit, boundary-controlled authorization condition has been satisfied?

Frozen upstream relationship

                 Arcstone Continuity Core

FROZEN / \ / \ ▼ ▼ Path A Ingress Lab Execution Boundary COMPLETE/FROZEN THIS REPO

The Path A Ingress Lab and Execution Boundary are sibling downstream investigations.

This repository does not modify or reinterpret either frozen upstream repository.

v0.1 invariants

I1 — NO VALID AUTHORIZATION

⇒ ZERO PROTECTED ACTUATION

I2 — ONE VALID SINGLE-USE AUTHORIZATION ⇒ AT MOST ONE PROTECTED ACTUATION

I3 — UNTRUSTED PRODUCER ⇏ PROTECTED RESOURCE

The implementation explicitly keeps separate:

authorization lifecycle

≠ gate decision ≠ actuation result ≠ observed protected effect

What is intentionally not here

v0.1 does not require or claim:

  • MCP
  • WASM
  • HMAC / signatures / PKI / KMS
  • network APIs
  • generalized policy engines
  • agent frameworks
  • package-manager publication
  • public production distribution guarantees
  • exactly-once real-world execution
  • production authorization security
  • AI alignment or general agent safety

Local data model

The experimental root has this shape:

runtime/

├── auth/ │ ├── issued/ │ └── consumed/ ├── protected/ │ └── effect.bin └── evidence/ └── /

An authorization record is trusted because the untrusted producer is not permitted to create or modify the auth tree under the tested authority configuration. The authorization identifier itself carries no authority.

The consumed/ .claim file is created with create_new(true). That atomic local reservation is the v0.1 single-use claim primitive.

Build

Windows CMD:

cargo build

cargo test

or:

scripts\windows\verify.cmd

Example

Create the runtime directories:

arcstone-exec init --root runtime

Issue one authorization:

arcstone-exec issue --root runtime --auth-id AUTH-001 --action WRITE_PROTECTED_FILE --resource-id EFFECT_LOG --payload-hex 48454c4c4f

Create request.json:

{

"authorization_id": "AUTH-001", "action": "WRITE_PROTECTED_FILE", "resource_id": "EFFECT_LOG", "payload_hex": "48454c4c4f" }

Execute it:

arcstone-exec execute --root runtime --request request.json --run-id manual-001

Inspect authorization state:

arcstone-exec inspect --root runtime --auth-id AUTH-001

A replay of the same request should return a denied result because the claim already exists.

Windows authority-boundary evidence

The Rust tests verify deterministic authorization, binding, consumption, replay, failure separation, and concurrent claiming.

They cannot by themselves prove producer-to-resource authority separation when producer and boundary run under the same Windows principal.

A separate bounded Windows authority experiment was therefore completed using distinct non-administrator producer and authority principals and a dedicated disposable runtime with explicit ACL separation.

Observed results:

  • T7 direct protected-resource bypass: PASS under the tested ACL configuration
  • T8 direct actuator bypass: PASS — bounded public-API/structural result
  • T9 forged authorization issuance: PASS under the tested ACL configuration
  • I2 single-use / at-most-once authority: supported for the tested authorization
  • I3 producer-to-protected-resource separation: supported for the tested Windows configuration

The successful authorized execution transitioned the tested authorization from Issued to Consumed, created the expected protected effect, and a replay was denied before a second actuation attempt.

This evidence does not establish general Windows sandbox security, arbitrary hostile-code containment, production authorization security, or universal bypass resistance.

See docs/WINDOWS-AUTHORITY-BOUNDARY.md for the complete bounded evidence record and freeze limitations.

Machine / AI / autonomous-agent navigation

This repository is intentionally machine-operable and machine-readable.

Start here:

AGENTS.md

machine/system-manifest.json machine/repo-policy.json machine/protocol.json machine/test-matrix.json STATUS.md BUILD-REPORT.md EXPERIMENT.md

Recommended automated traversal:

1. Read machine/system-manifest.json
  1. Read machine/repo-policy.json
  2. Read AGENTS.md
  3. Read STATUS.md
  4. Read EXPERIMENT.md
  5. Run cargo test
  6. Read docs/WINDOWS-AUTHORITY-BOUNDARY.md before making OS-authority claims

Humans are not required in the deterministic request/decision path. Human-facing prose exists primarily for governance, scientific interpretation, and review.

Working principle

Evidence before expansion. Preserve the core. Test the boundary. Freeze completed evidence.

Ask PopNx